Conference back40::soapbox

    They'll ignore the 10 percent and form their own little sub-societies
    because the 90 percent will have most of the brains. 

    Another scenario would be, if the 10 percent isn't kind to the 90
    percent, the 90 percent will kill the 10 percent and we start all over
    again.

    I've often wondered about that myself.  Reduce the problem to its
    logical extreme, and say 1 person has a machine that will produce
    everything everyone needs.
    
    Sounds ideal, right -- nobody will have to work.
    
    But in our system of government, nobody will have any way to pay the 1
    guy with the machine, so everyone except the 1 guy will all starve.
    
    I believe that is why the enthusiastic predictions we used to hear in
    the '50s about how electricity was one day going to do so much of our
    work for us that we could all enjoy much more leisure time, never has
    come to pass.  Quite the opposite is true, in fact.
    
    So how DO we get our technology to actually make our LIVES better,
    instead of just making them more competitive?
    
    Maybe the time for a mandated 4-day work week is finally here?
    

Compare and contrast: Harrison Bergeron vs. Player Piano.

Never mind.  My Bokoninist tendencies are showing again.

History has shown that 90% of the population rarely lets 10% of the
population call all the shots, when those 10% totally ignore the welfare of
the other 90%.  Witness bloodless overthrows of communist states: the 90%
finally got fed up, and the 10% couldn't hold it together any longer.

While the scenario in .0 is certianly possible, the cynical side of me says
that it's doubtful that it would actually happen.  The 90% would first tax
and regulate the crap out of the other 10%, and have the handicapper
general make sure no one gets too far ahead.

Many years ago I read a SF short story along these lines.  It 
started out with this recently wed couple living in what we 
would call the lap of luxury.  They lived in a palacial home. 
They had all kinds of material stuff.  They couldn't use it fast 
enough.  

We are given a comparison of the wife's parents living in a 
little 3-room cottage in the boon-docks.  At this point the wife 
says to the husband, "I'm tired of being poor."  It turns out 
her parents are rich because dad was a judge.

The premise of the story was that because so much was produced 
by so few people that the lower classes were forced by 
government into over consumption.  That is the lower classes' 
became virtual slave labor whose job was to consume (not 
necessarily implying the consumer would enjoy it).  Consumption 
isn't fun if it's your forced-labor job.

The husband's job, BTW, was to develop a slot-machine type of 
device.  The player would win by receiving special coupons that 
cancelled some of his consumption quota.  The player lost by 
getting a coupon that required he consume even more.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the author.  

    That sounds like Ronald Reagan.

    > Unfortunately, I don't remember the author.  
    
    	doesn't sound unfortunate to me.

    I agree that there will never be an actual 10% rich, 90% starving
    situation, but this is an example, taken perhaps to a bit of an extreme
    for purposes of clarity, of exactly what is happening to a much smaller
    degree (so far) in our own country as other countries.
    
    The owners of technology are getting richer, as are the usual others,
    like politicians (CEOs are just another form of politician), while
    everyone else is getting relatively poorer.
    
    When each family lived on its own few acres and did its own farming,
    everyone had a more equal chance for "success", especially those in the
    better farming areas.
    
    But now that we are all specialized, and depend on trade to make our
    labors have value to us, how are we going to maintain reasonable value
    for what we do, especially in the face of technology that is taking
    over more and more of the "work" that used to give our work its value?
    
    How is an economy that is designed to work with people who are fairly
    equal in their ability to provide value, going to work when far fewer
    people have the ability to provide value?
    

    
    sounds like "Soylent Green" to me.
    little wafers made out of people.
    

	Raise taxes to 90% and give it all directly to the non-producers
	so they can pay the producers.

    RE: .7

>    When each family lived on its own few acres and did its own farming,
>    everyone had a more equal chance for "success", especially those in the
>    better farming areas.

    Are you implying that that was better?

    My grandparents were considered "middle class", but they never had a
    microwave oven, VCR, dish-washer or CD player.  Not until late in their
    marriage did they have most of the "luxuries" that we take for granted
    like a washing machine and clothes drier.

    Would you rather live like a '90s American below the "poverty" line or
    like Alexander the Great?  Personally, I think I like the concept of
    having a refrigerator and being able to use a flush toilet.  Move those
    luxuries to Alexander's time and a person would live better than a king.

    -- Dave

    > My grandparents were considered "middle class", but they never had a
    > microwave oven, VCR, dish-washer or CD player.  Not until late in their
    > marriage did they have most of the "luxuries" that we take for granted
    > like a washing machine and clothes drier.
    
    Yeah, but these days the "middle class" feels they have to buy these
    items just so they can keep up with the Welfare Nation.
    
    Chris

    .0
    
    > they will not being able to pay...
    
    What the hell kind of linguistic infelicity is that?  How can you
    expect to be taken seriously if you insist on using such egregious
    solecisms instead of constructing coherent sentences in which to frame
    your thoughts?

    Re .9:
    
    > Raise taxes to 90% and give it all directly to the non-producers so
    > they can pay the producers.  
    
    Then what prevents the producers from choosing not to produce and
    becoming consumers to live off the dole?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Nothing.

.4

Hugo-award winning short story "The Midas Plague". I think it might have
been Frederic Pohl, not sure.

    >>When each family lived on its own few acres and did its own farming,
    >>everyone had a more equal chance for "success", especially those in
    the
    >>better farming areas.
    
    >    Are you implying that that was better?
    
    No, I'm saying that this system made it easier for anyone who
    was willing to work hard to make a living.  You didn't need a
    college degree, you didn't need to be computer literate, all you
    needed was to get up early in the morning and spend most of the
    day doing manual labor that anyone could do.  Of course you needed
    the land to do it on as well, but when there weren't so many of
    us that was not much of a problem.
    
    And I'm saying that as the knowhow and the raw materials for
    producing food, clothing, houses, and the other things  we need
    in order to live in our ever more specialized society become
    concentrated in the hands of fewer people, the rest of the people
    are going to have more problems finding ways to earn a living.
    
    Obviously we will have to find a way to share the wealth, either
    directly or by sharing the work somehow.
    
    Welfare is obviously one solution, but we have rejected that.
    Reducing the work week is another solution, but there seems to
    be little interest in that for some reason I certainly can't
    fathom.
    
    So what are we going to do about it?
    

    re .10
    
    Right now, my share of the national debt ($18,000 and growing...)
    supersedes my annual income. I think that puts me in the poverty level.
    

I disagree with the premise that "Someday, 10 percent of the population will
be able to supply the needs of the entire population...".  This means that
on average, 1 producer will provide all the needs for themself and 9 others.
While I agree that the trend is moving in the direction of fewer producers
needed per unit number of consumers, a ratio of 1:9 is ridiculously extreme.

There is the additional factor of meeting "wants" as well.  Even if a 1:9
ratio could be achieved for "needs", would the providers/suppliers be content
with only their needs met?  My guess would be that supplying non-essentials
makes up for the vast majority of Western economy.  Defining "non-essentials"
is a big problem.  For instance, can one talk about providing for the "need"
of food without including transportation, packaging, cooking implements, etc.?

Technology alone will not meet all needs or wants - labor will always be
needed to some degree.

I agree that an ever increasing disparity between rich and poor is occuring.
How to get youth to understand that getting a good education is essential is
the pressing problem...

Ray

    > Hugo-award winning short story "The Midas Plague". I think it might
    > have been Frederic Pohl, not sure.
    
    good memory- I thought it was an Asimov, myself, but it's attributed to
    Pohl at http://www.his.com/~cfrank/sflist.htm .  But the guy who made
    the list claims its a novella.
    
    DougO

    RE: .16

>    No, I'm saying that this system made it easier for anyone who
>    was willing to work hard to make a living.  You didn't need a
>    college degree, you didn't need to be computer literate, all you
>    needed was to get up early in the morning and spend most of the
>    day doing manual labor that anyone could do.  

    Well, at least you have the "work hard" part correct.  If you ever want
    to see some "real" hard work, visit a farmer for a bit.  It takes far
    more hard work to make a living as a farmer than it does flipping
    burgers ... especially on small farms.

    It would appear that you are confusing "make a living" with "have all
    the neat little toys everyone wants".  If I decided to flip burgers for
    a living, I would have a higher standard of living than my great
    grandparents did as farmers.  While they may have owned more land than
    I would, I at least would have a flush toliet, refrigerator, and TV.

>    And I'm saying that as the knowhow and the raw materials for
>    producing food, clothing, houses, and the other things  we need
>    in order to live in our ever more specialized society become
>    concentrated in the hands of fewer people, the rest of the people
>    are going to have more problems finding ways to earn a living.

    Another way of looking at it is that specialization frees people up to
    build other luxuries we wouldn't have if everyone had to worry about
    growing their own food.  I don't just have to be a poor dirt farmer, I
    can be a programmer, an automechanic, or a VCR repairmen.

    By the way, just because it is possible to let someone else grow your
    food for you doesn't mean that you can't drop out of modern society,
    take up residence in a una-shack somewhere, and try to grow your own
    food.

>    Obviously we will have to find a way to share the wealth, either
>    directly or by sharing the work somehow.

    So your point is that since everything was fairer when we didn't have
    all the modern luxuries, we should take away luxuries from people who
    work hard for them and give them to other people in order to create a
    more "fair" system ... kind of equalize out the misery index.  By the
    way, do you favor Stalinist Communism or Maoist Communism?

>    Reducing the work week is another solution, but there seems to
>    be little interest in that for some reason I certainly can't
>    fathom.

    Maybe there's little interest because people don't want to reduce their
    standard of living (read "neat little toys that everyone wants") by 20%
    when they only work 4 instead of 5 days a week.  I.e., you can't drop
    productivity by 20% and expect your standard of living to remain
    constant.

    -- Dave

    >Technology alone will not meet all needs or wants - labor
    >will always be needed to some degree.
    
    And it is the rest of them -- those whose labor is not needed --
    who will have the problem making a living.  That's what we need
    a solution for...
    
    >I agree that an ever increasing disparity between rich and 
    >poor is occuring.  How to get youth to understand that getting 
    >a good education is essential is the pressing problem...
    
    Education works for an individual as long as there are only 
    _some_ people who are getting an education.  If everyone in the 
    next generation were to get a PhD in the same subject, there
    would be a lot of PhDs flipping hamburgers.  Check out the
    situation in India if you don't believe that.
    
    Education along doesn't cut it.  There also has to be a demand
    for the knowledge.  Imagine if 90% of people had a PhD in
    Computer Science what your job as a Software Engineer would be
    worth.
    
    We are taking little nips around the edges of the real issue,
    but we haven't gotten to the heart of it yet.
    

    >It takes far                                                        
    >more hard work to make a living as a farmer than it does flipping
    >burgers ... especially on small farms.
    
    And you can live self-sufficiently as a farmer (or at least you
    used to be able to, and almost everyone did).  But you can't
    live very self-sufficiently on a burger-flipper's salary now, and
    without the welfare of minimum wage you wouldn't be able to live at
    all on it if you wanted also to raise a family.
    
    >It would appear that you are confusing "make a living" with "have all
    >the neat little toys everyone wants".  If I decided to flip burgers for
    >a living, I would have a higher standard of living than my great
    >grandparents did as farmers.  While they may have owned more land than
    >I would, I at least would have a flush toliet, refrigerator, and TV.
    
    You are confusing a flush toilet, refrigerator, and TV with having a
    high standard of living.  IMO your grandparents had a much higher
    standard of living than you could if you flipped burgers for a living.
    
    >Another way of looking at it is that specialization frees people up to
    >build other luxuries we wouldn't have if everyone had to worry about
    >growing their own food.  I don't just have to be a poor dirt farmer, I
    >can be a programmer, an automechanic, or a VCR repairmen.
    
    Yes, it's all very good for us right now.  But you are ignoring
    the whole point of what happens when half of our lovely little
    high tech specialized jobs are no longer needed, along with most
    of the low tech jobs.  What are you going to do when there IS no
    work for you to do?
    
    >So your point is that since everything was fairer when we didn't have
    >all the modern luxuries, we should take away luxuries from people who
    >work hard for them and give them to other people in order to create a
    >more "fair" system ... kind of equalize out the misery index.  By the
    >way, do you favor Stalinist Communism or Maoist Communism?
    
    I'm asking what we _should_ do.  If you have no answer, then that's
    all you have to say.  I don't favor communism.  But ask yourself this
    question:  Why is it that we have laws in this country that prevent
    the concentration of land ownership in the hands of only a few?  And
    tell me what kind of communism that is...
    
    >Maybe there's little interest because people don't want to reduce their
    >standard of living (read "neat little toys that everyone wants") by 20%
    >when they only work 4 instead of 5 days a week.  I.e., you can't drop
    >productivity by 20% and expect your standard of living to remain
    >constant.
    
    And when you drop 5 out of 5 days because your skills aren't needed
    any more, how much of a hit will your standard of living take then?
    
    In any case, I think your statement is incorrect.  Your standard of
    living would be unaffected if EVERYONE went to 32-hour weeks.
    

    The most bizarre characteristics of the present society is its
    overpopulation and aging problems. In a rational and hopefully near
    future society, overpopulation and aging will be impossible. Exactly the 
    opposite will occur. When society is free of destructive parasites like
    politicians and religious leaders, each conscious being will be free to
    productively, culturally, and artistically innovate and flourish without 
    limits, becoming of limitless value to others and society. Each conscious 
    being in a rational society is free to innovate and produce through
    division-of-labor dynamics far more values and resources than he or she 
    consumes. This will produce ever increasing values while always decreasing 
    entropy. Conscious beings will soon learn how to remain forever young and 
    precious.
    
                               

    You're a loonie!

    Thank you, Ive succeeded!  :)

    Hmmm... does "the shrinking middle class" sound familiar?
    
    To survive now, you need to be competitive.  It'll only get worse as
    the jobs that pay disappear.
    
    You hear alot about "the service industry".  Yup.  What used to take
    10 people 1 year, took me (hypothetical) 1 month to automate, and one person
    to maintain it.  I get paid $30,000 for one month labor.  Some monitor
    watcher gets paid $6/hour to watch it all year, and 9 people are
    applying for the 3 jobs over at McDonalds (service industry).
    
    Oh ya, keep in mind the Goals 2000 school agenda.  This is supposed to
    ruin a childs competiveness, that way they'll be complacent. 
    Complacent idiots.
    
    MadMike 

         As I have stated before, the only way to eliminate this problem is
    to drastically reduce the population; not only in this country but in
    other countries around the world. A reasonable world population would
    be right around 1 billion. In the United States, this would be about 50
    million. 

    Nonsense, the world will let us know when it's had enough. We don't
    have a clue.

    
    ...speak for yourself 8^)!
    

         Actually, the world has given us plenty of clues. We just ignore
    them, which is why the world population might be 0 within the next
    twenty years. But then again, that's an optimistic projection. 

    Nonsense. There will be 50% more in 20 years. You just wait and see.

    You know what the real problem is? The doomsday message sells.

    <---------
    It's been around for hundreds of years.
    

    I`m even starting to think the world is going to end soon.
    
         -And I`m not even religious

    Mate! Mate! Mate!  Like rabbits everyone.  Got plenty of room for more
    tax payin' citizens.

    You mating style may resemble a rabbit, but that don`t go for the rest
    of us.

    No More Nukes!

    Longer than that.
    
    I saw a professor from the University Of Manitoba, Dr. Tim Ball. He's
    an enviro scientist and he did a great bit about global warming saying
    that the doomsday message is what gets funding. He had a very positive
    outlook on the future. It was very refreshing.
    
    Check this guy on the web, he's out there.

         Naw, nuke everything!!! 

    I read somewhere recently that the fed (Alan Greenspan) tries to keep
    the economy rolling along at a moderate pace, not too fast, not too
    slow, in order to prevent either recession or inflation.
    
    One of the primary indicators it uses as a measure of inflation danger
    is the unemployment rate.  They try very hard to keep unemployment
    above a certain low percentage (I forget what, maybe 3% to 6% or so)
    because if it falls below that then employers have to compete for
    employees, wage pressure raises salaries across the board, and
    inflation is the inevitable result.
    
    So if a certain amount of unemployment is always maintained, and if
    welfare is eliminated, how then do we expect the unemployed to live?

    Why, the Church will pick up the tab.  Where you been?
    
    I recently made an observation on the same point (pool of labour) in
    the abortion topic, but it was probably too radical a concept.  Even
    if you believe the myth of full employment, consider that there are
    already some four million Americans who are totally unemployable for one
    reason or another (expect more if extremist anti-abortionists get their
    way.)  Just multiply that figure by a wage that keeps them just on the
    poverty level and compare it to current charity funding.   A dose of
    reality might set in.
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Hey, there's nothing wrong in this country that a good revolution
    wouldn't fix.  :-)

The last "good times" were the 1950s.  We didn't worry about pollution,
didn't realize what industry was doing with their waste.  Didn't worry 
about smoking or drinking, the statistics weren't in on those either.  
Housing, cars and good times were affordable.  

It's all gone down hill from then.  Now we are paying the price for all
the good times.

In the next 20-30 years expect the standard of living to go down for most
of us, who will be well into retirement by then.  The value of pensions and 
IRAs will fall as stock prices fall when the selling starts.  

The dream of the good old days of self sufficiency is just that, a dream.  
The days of growing your own food were far from great.  It's hell to sit 
there and watch crops die, ever worse if it's your winter food as well.
Although, starvation is natures birth control, I'd rather have the artificial
kind.

I've been a farmer and I couldn't go back to that again, I don't have the
stamina or strength.  But, at least I know how to grow food and care for
animals.  How many of the rest of America does--go to the center of Boston
and ask people on the street how many eggs a hen produces and when.

I am very glad to have a back yard large enough to support me.  If only
I can hang on to the property until I die, let alone be able to hand it 
over to my child.  Unfortunately, the burden of education on my property 
taxes might kill that dream.

    <---- Gee, and you usually have such a positive outlook on life.

    
    Perhaps she needs a coffee.
    

    >I am very glad to have a back yard large enough to support me.
    
    And you have the knowledge to go with it, as you said.  It may be
    a hard life, but at least you could do it if you had to, especially
    if you had some help.
    
    The life of a software engineer in the middle of a big city where
    nobody wants his knowledge or experience any more, where he has to
    continue to pay rent or be evicted, and where he has no other means
    of earning a living, can be considerably more difficult.  I would
    opt for the chance to be self-sufficient any time.
    
    >If only I can hang on to the property until I die, let alone be
    >able to hand it over to my child.  Unfortunately, the burden of
    >education on my property taxes might kill that dream.
    
    This is an excellent point.  But it isn't education that threatens
    your property, it is the fact that even though we like to think we
    have the right to "own" land in this country, we do not.
    
    Nobody but the government owns any land in this country.  The
    very most we can "own" is the right to rent some land from the
    government by paying property taxes on it.  As soon as we can no
    longer afford the property taxes, that land we think we own becomes
    the property of the government again, to be sold to somebody who
    _can_ pay the taxes.
    
    This illusion of property ownership is one of the greatest BIG
    LIES our government has fed us, and we have swallowed it whole.
    All it takes is for a retired person on a fixed income to have
    his or her land "rezoned" at a higher tax rate, for them to lose
    "their" land through no fault of their own.  Of course some here
    in the box would say, "Well if they can't plan for their retirement
    then tough luck."
    
    The fact that most of property taxes go for education doesn't mean
    anything.  The government has to use the property tax money for
    something, and education is as good as anything else.  If it didn't
    go for education, the government would find something else to do
    with it.
    
    The real reason for property taxes is much more fundamental than
    it would appear, and some people aren't going to like to hear this.
    The real reason for property taxes is to prevent ownership of the
    land area of this country from becoming concentrated in the hands
    of a few very rich people.  If no one person can afford to own too
    much land, then there will be more to go around, and that is the
    whole reason for property taxes.  It is a little bit of communism
    in the midst of this anti-communist country, but almost nobody
    recognizes it.
    

    .45
    
    Well, you got just about all of it wrong.  Property taxes are the same
    as any other tax.  We, the people, have the ability to decide exactly
    just how much in taxes we want to pay.  Unfortunately you have the
    bleeding hearts out there that say if you have $.01 more than someone
    else you are a bad person and tax rates must be put in place to
    conficate your wealth above their arbitrary figure.
    
    We have the right and ability to eliminate property taxes in total if
    we so chose.  You just try and get that concept past the liberals in
    thsi forum, let alone the country as a whole.  The government has
    nothing to do with it.  Too many people have bought the "chicken in
    every pot" concept of government and want someone else to pay for their
    chicken.
    
    Lastly, the future is indeed bright if government allows people to go
    out and grow the economy.  There are industries today that were
    unimagined 10 years ago.  Think just about the Internet and the
    industries and jobs beign created.  What will be the next Internet, I
    don't know, but wouldn't be the least surprised to see it occur in
    space exploration and development.
    
    The future is great and will only be limited by the doomsayers and
    social engineers that would limit your personal greatness.
    

    So *that's* why the property taxes in staunchly Republican New Hampshire
    are among the highest in the country.
     

    >We have the right and ability to eliminate property taxes in
    >total if we so chose.
    
    You just think you do.  You don't.  You and a team of Clydesdales
    would never be able to get rid of property tax.  And you wouldn't
    want to, or a few people like Ross Perot and Bill Gates will 
    eventually own all the land in the US, and you and I will be 
    their serfs.
    
    Think about it instead of just reacting to stuff you don't want to
    hear by spouting out 8th grade civics lesson platitudes.
    
    How do you think we got the land away from the original land grant
    owners in the first place?
    

RE: .21

>    Education works for an individual as long as there are only 
>    _some_ people who are getting an education....

Well yes, if everyone is becoming a brain surgeon then we'll have
some pretty big problems...  I meant education in the general sense
of training in all areas - software developers, chemists, welders,
nurses, geologists, accountants, electricians, etc...

Even with the inevitable imbalances between skillset demands and
supply, a generally educated population is greatly preferred to
an uneducated one.

Ray

    I still question what a college degree would be worth if literally
    everyone had one.
    
    I agree that with specialized training and/or more education most
    people _today_ will have good job opportunities.
    
    But as automation does more and more for us, and the people who own the
    automation quite naturally expect to be paid for the products of the
    automation, what is going to happen to those whose expertise and
    education and training is no longer sufficient to guarantee them jobs?
    
    Or is there something built into the system that I am missing that will
    not allow this ever to happen?  

    
    When I was in College in the UK it was still "free".  Property/Govt taxes
    funded education right through 3-7 years of higher education. 
    Consequently, there were a large number of graduates to fit into a
    shrinking job market.  Literacy rates in the UK are generally very high
    also ( a few regional problems).   I shared rooms with a couple of
    Germans who were PAID to go to college.  They got a monthly cheque and
    their course fees were paid by the German gov't
    
    This did nothing to improve the official joblessness figures in the UK,
    Germany, or other European countries with liberal education policies.
    Figures have remained high compared to the 6% in the US.  In my region of
    the UK, unemployment rates are as high as 15%.
    
    But, although highly-educated people are a glut on the market, they are
    less of a burden on society than the unemployed uneducated.   They are
    much more resourceful at living within limited means, supplementing
    incomes etc.  They are much less frequent users of drugs, alcohol, and
    tobacco placing less strain on social services.  They do eventually
    find meaningful work at adequate compensation by maintaining their
    educational advantage.  They also have expectations of living standards
    that are long-established and fairly modest by American standards.  
    They have no worries about health insurance, for example.
    
    I believe that this is one of the main reasons that European
    unemployment figures are tolerated by the people.  Assuming that the
    scenario in 0. includes "providing all educational opportunities for
    the 90%",  education would be part of process of ensuring that the 90%
    were happy with their lot in life.
                                    

    re: Note 774.46 by ACISS1::ROCUSH
    
    Goodwin was right on.  Find out who owns your land.  Find out
    who owns your property (automobile).  What is the difference
    between PRIVATE property and PERSONAL property?  Big difference.
    What is allodial title and why do you want it, better yet, how do
    you get it?
    
    Ask some tough questions.  We have the god given right to life
    liberty and property, but the state can steal it if they want to
    build a freeway next to it.  ????  That don't sound right.  What's
    the deal with "zoning laws"?
    
    Check out my lien.  What good is it?  Mr. bill thinks I'm chitting in
    public records.  Actually what I did is stated a claim.  Nothing more,
    nothing less, as is my right.  Why did I do that?
    
    We're going down the hopper, regardless of who's at the wheel. My
    children will be in the generation that ultimately pays for this.
    It's going to be every man for themself down the road.  Plan
    accordingly and hopefully things'll be SSDD and my grandchildren will
    get stuck with the mess.  Nobody will clean it up.
    
    MadMike 

    every man for _him_self.

    .52
    
    My contention was, and still is, that "we the people" have the ability
    to eliminate taxes, property or otherwise.  We can, should we chose,
    eliminate the government's ability to levy and collect taxes should we
    so chose.  We can do this through the constitutional process of
    amendment.
    
    Yes, I do agree that the government can condemn and acquire property
    for the construction of a highway, etc.  I am not all that unsure that
    this is always a bad thing.  I believe there are excesses, but that is
    OUR responsibility to control.
    
    I firmly believe that governmental excesses occur because too many
    peopleignore and accept too much.  The contention that without property
    taxes Bill Gates would own all of America is absurd on the surface. 
    Also, as far as I know, property taxes were not instituted by the
    government to make sure that Bill Gates didn't buy my house.
    

    I agree with you in part.  "We the people" are lazy arses.  Don't
    wake me up unless yer peeing on me.
    
    Think about when the gov't wants to grab some land.  They use sole
    dominion or the law of necessity or some such deal, no trail usually, 
    therefore, some commission does it, like it or not.  This is what heppens. 
    Maybe you get a public meeting and 2 other citizens show up.  Yer screwed.
    or so you think.
    
    Too many people are disenfranchised with "the system" to change it.
    They think they gotta look to folks like newt to save them.  This'll
    never happen.  It needs to be a focused grass roots deal to work.
    The X million people toying with the IRS is an example.  Change through
    civil disobedience.  Congress HAS to deal with this because "we the
    people" are pushing back.
    
    Another problem is that gov't is operating outside of the
    Constitution, it's like a genie out of its bottle.  It's impossible
    to get the genie back in there unless people focus their efforts,
    and they're not.  They're bitching about abortion, and welfare and
    the public debt.  Side shows.
    
    MadMike

    .43
    I missed lunch today!

    
    <--- take an extended break then. hth

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 774.58                      Future Economy                         58 of 58
TUXEDO::GASKELL                                      35 lines  16-AUG-1996 14:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I agree with .55 and .54
    
    We are lazy, or rather we don't have enough energy at the end of 
    the day to put up a fight, after many of you have worked 50 or 60 hours
    a week then gone home and done some more.  At least we WC 2s have
    some protection against working more than 40 H a week.
    
    There was a time that I would have thought the conspiracy theory was
    all cod's wollop, but I am not so sure any more.  Business runs this
    country, they own the government, who own us.  Politicians try and keep 
    us riled up over what are really non issues, the militia groups, abortion,
    burning the flag.  They're all smoke screens to hide what we should really
    be fighting back about.   
    
    Their hands in our pockets.  
    
    Those hands are not taking money to help my neighbors, or children or the 
    elderly.  They are helping big business, other countries (we are paying 
    50M to clear mines in Bosnia.  I didn't lay them so why am I paying for 
    them to be removed.) and keep politicians rear ends sitting in luxury in
    Washington.  They punish the poor and elderly if they earn a few dollars
    a week over some paltry cap limit, but many of the people who impose
    those caps are millionaires.  You don't see them imposing an earnings cap 
    on themselves.
    
    But, I could go on all day on this topic and then I'd miss out on my tea 
    brake and that would be a shame.
    
    
    To get back:  What you're saying doesn't sound so off the mark as it 
    might have a few years ago.
    
    
    
    

RE: .50

>    I still question what a college degree would be worth if literally
>    everyone had one.
    
Why do you insist that "educated" means "college degree"?  

>    I agree that with specialized training and/or more education most
>    people _today_ will have good job opportunities.

Ok.
    
>    But as automation does more and more for us, and the people who own the
>    automation quite naturally expect to be paid for the products of the
>    automation, what is going to happen to those whose expertise and
>    education and training is no longer sufficient to guarantee them jobs?

They will have to punt - just as people who have expertise/education/training
sometimes have to.  In general, the former will have a harder go of it but there
are consequences for everything.
   
>    Or is there something built into the system that I am missing that will
>    not allow this ever to happen?  

Effort goes a long way to overcome other obstacles.  There are exceptions, but I
believe that there is, and will continue to be for a long time, the opportunities
for the overwhelming majority of people who have a desire to provide for themselves.
But I'm just one of those "don't work, don't eat" types.

Ray

    I still question what a high school diploma would be worth if literally
    everyone had one.
    
    Oh yeah, that was the goal.
    
    A high school diploma is considered (in this country) to be pretty much
    a minimum level of education for a decent job.  It's not too hard a
    stretch to imagine that the bar could be raised to make that a BA or
    BS.  From the way the "decent job" market looks now, one would think
    that may have happened.

    >But, although highly-educated people are a glut on the market,
    >they are less of a burden on society than the unemployed uneducated.
    >They are much more resourceful at living within limited means,
    >supplementing...
    
    Well that certainly is comforting.  So I should tell my kids that
    they should spend 4 years or more bustin' their buns in school,
    accumulating thousands of dollars of debt that it will take them
    years to pay off, so that they can be less of a burden on society
    in case there are not enough jobs for them.  I might recommend
    special forces school just as a backup.
    
    >They do eventually find meaningful work at adequate compensation
    >by maintaining their educational advantage.
    
    How does someone who is unemployed, and who is, according to your
    description, making do with very little, find many thousands of
    dollars a year to pay for school to maintain their educational
    advantage?
    
    >I believe that there is, and will continue to be for a long time,
    >the opportunities for the overwhelming majority of people who have
    >a desire to provide for themselves.
    
    Your optimism is inspiring, and I hope you are right, but if the
    population keeps increasing, and technology keeps increasing,
    then what exactly are all those people going to do for jobs?
    

    >My contention was, and still is, that "we the people" have the
    >ability to eliminate taxes, property or otherwise.
    
    You'd never make it happen.  Too many people live off those
    property taxes to ever let us get away with eliminating them.
    
    Besides, if you think about it, you really don't want to eliminate
    property taxes, or property "ownership", such as it is, would
    disappear altogether for all but a few in a generation or two.
    
    >people ignore and accept too much.  The contention that without
    >property taxes Bill Gates would own all of America is absurd on
    >the surface.
    
    You wish.  You are naive in the extreme if you think that without
    property taxes, estate taxes, and other means by which the state
    can take private property, it would all eventually end up in the
    hands of a few.
    
    Open your eyes and you can see it happening even today.  Ever been
    to Ocean City, Maryland?  Atlantic City or Ocean City, NJ?
    Kennebunkport, ME?  The most valuable property in all these places
    is all owned by a very few people, who then are able to make huge
    amounts of money from it, leaving those who actually rent the
    property to run the business that make the income with crumbs.
    
    The entire country would be that way in a couple of generations
    or sooner if we eliminated property tax.  It'd be just like a big
    game of Monopoly.  
    
    Look what happened to land values in California back in the 60s and
    70s once all the usable land was taken.  Prices skyrocketed.  Guess
    what would happen to your neighborhood if one person could own it all
    without having to pay any taxes on it to keep it -- the only way you
    could afford to live there would be to pay rent much higher than the
    mortgage you now pay.  This is what happened in the middle ages or
    whenever a few people owned almost all the land in a country.
    

    .62
    
    You obviously have no concept of property ownership and fre amrket
    economics.  It's too late to try and spend the energy to educate you,
    but if you think property tax is the only thing standing between Bill
    Gates or Ted Kennedy owning all of America you have a very serious
    problem.
    
    On the other hand, I do agree with Gaskell, wow that felt odd, about
    the government having their hand in my pocket.  I really wonder why so
    many people tend to support Liberal Democratic policies and then
    complain about paying too much in taxes???  Where od these people
    thionk the government gets the money to pay for these programs??
    
    Unless you are willing to kick the bums out and send a clear message
    that we wanrt less government, fewer programs and more of our hard
    earned money in our pockets, then you will have just that much less.
    
    Why do you think that Clinton refuses to even consider a tax cut this
    year??  Because he's so concerned about the deficit??  Horse doodle!! 
    He knows that as long as a majority opf people get part of the pie from
    someone else they will continue to keep them in office.
    
    If we continue to elect people who cut taxes adn spending, we will get
    to a smaller government and a lower tax bill.  It's doable and we can
    start this year.  If not stop complaining about how deep the government
    goes into your pocket.
    

    How can anybody be expected to have a concept of fre amrket economics??
    
    
    :)

    .61
    
    Perhaps I didn't make it clear.  My 5 years in college didn't cost me
    much more than a thousand dollars.   The scenario I makes the assumption
    that 0. includes "free" education in the list of items provided for the 90%.
    The point is, you'll get by with a "better educated" unemployed than
    you will with bread and circuses.

    I'm waiting for Dole to give me my 15% in taxes back. So I can watch
    Greenspan go nuts controlling the inflation resulting.

    RE: .21
    
>   If everyone in the 
>    next generation were to get a PhD in the same subject, there
>    would be a lot of PhDs flipping hamburgers.  

    Yes, and if everyone decided that they would never date or marry anyone
    who wasn't blond and blue-eyed then there would be a lot of lonely
    people in this world.  Both scenarios are rather ridiculous. 

    Occasionally, in the United States we have periods where there are too
    many people who go into teaching.  After the glut of teachers shows up,
    many in that group change professions and not as many go into teaching
    ... causing a shortage which causes more people to go into teaching ... 
    It's called free market and it's self correcting.

>    Education along doesn't cut it.  There also has to be a demand
>    for the knowledge.  

    Of course.  Have you looked up what a PhD in marine biology pays?  You
    have to have abilities in an area that people want ... and you have to
    have the ability to adapt.

    A friend of mine once said that everyone should have at least 3 careers
    in their life.  He started as a radio disc jockey, became a VP in a
    major Chicago advertising agency, went into software development,
    and now he's on his 4th career.

    Bottom line is that you have to adapt to your environment.

    -- Dave

    RE: .22
    
>    And you can live self-sufficiently as a farmer (or at least you
>    used to be able to, and almost everyone did).  But you can't
>    live very self-sufficiently on a burger-flipper's salary now, and
>    without the welfare of minimum wage you wouldn't be able to live at
>    all on it if you wanted also to raise a family.

    First off, as pointed out elsewhere, burger flippers make more than
    minimum wage so that part is just noise.

    While making $6/hour and 40 hours a week, one can make $1,000 a month. 
    You can rent an apartment in my town for less than $250 a month, shop
    at the local thrift stores for clothes (or make your own), save up for
    a while and spring for a TV at the Salvation Army (skip the cable, too
    expensive).  Your life won't have all the middle class toys that we
    like, but neither did my grandparents.

    
>    >It would appear that you are confusing "make a living" with "have all
>    >the neat little toys everyone wants".  If I decided to flip burgers for
>    >a living, I would have a higher standard of living than my great
>    >grandparents did as farmers.  While they may have owned more land than
>    >I would, I at least would have a flush toliet, refrigerator, and TV.
>    
>    You are confusing a flush toilet, refrigerator, and TV with having a
>    high standard of living.  IMO your grandparents had a much higher
>    standard of living than you could if you flipped burgers for a living.
 
    I would be interested in what you define as a "higher standard of
    living".  I'm sure that our definitions are incompatible.

    Two months ago or so I visited some relatives that run a small farm. 
    Their mother had just died and they were settling her "estate".  The
    house didn't have indoor facilities (even in the '90s), the foundation
    of the house was in bad shape, and the outhouse was enough to make one
    wretch (literally).  How much would this house rent for?  This is the
    standard of living that you aspire to?

    I strongly suspect that you don't have first hand experience of what
    it's like to live on a farm and have been taken in by too many "Little
    House on the Prairie" type shows combined with the general insecurity
    here at Digital.  The "be your man", "raise your own food" is starting
    to become to appealing.
       
>    Yes, it's all very good for us right now.  But you are ignoring
>    the whole point of what happens when half of our lovely little
>    high tech specialized jobs are no longer needed, along with most
>    of the low tech jobs.  What are you going to do when there IS no
>    work for you to do?
 
    You mean no high/low tech job.  I fully expect that within 3-5 years my
    current skill set to be obsolete; within 10 years completely obsolete. 
    How much call is there for ALL-IN-1 programmers these days (which was
    the skill that got me hired by Digital in the first place)? 

    The solution is to adapt, grow, and change.  In 10 years I may not be
    in a high tech job, but there's always a job for someone who is smart,
    willing to work hard, and has an imagination.
       
>    In any case, I think your statement is incorrect.  Your standard of
>    living would be unaffected if EVERYONE went to 32-hour weeks.
 
    Were back to the question of how do you define standard of living.  If
    it's "keeping up with Jones" then yes, if everyone drops what they
    produce and subsequently what they can afford by 20% then we will
    remain at parity with each other, a lower parity perhaps, but at least
    at the same parity relative to each other.  I don't consider that
    progress and I don't consider that the same standard of living.

    -- Dave

    RE: .39
    
>    So if a certain amount of unemployment is always maintained, and if
>    welfare is eliminated, how then do we expect the unemployed to live?

    Two points:
        1.  Even if we eliminate welfare that doesn't mean that we have to
            eliminate unemployment insurance.  The two are not the same.
        2.  It is not expected that the same 3-6% are to be perpetually
            unemployed, if it were to be uniformly distributed (which it
            won't be) then each person would be unemployed only 1 or 2
            years out of 30.

    It should also be pointed out that if you're not saving a small
    amount of your take home each week (10%), then you're living beyond
    your means (which, as discussed elsewhere, too many people do).

    -- Dave

    RE: .50

>    But as automation does more and more for us, and the people who own the
>    automation quite naturally expect to be paid for the products of the
>    automation, what is going to happen to those whose expertise and
>    education and training is no longer sufficient to guarantee them jobs?
>    
>    Or is there something built into the system that I am missing that will
>    not allow this ever to happen?  

    Yes, there is something you're missing.  As the market for an expertise
    (e.g., high tech) dries up, people will start going into other fields. 
    Though it receives a lot of hype now, and our jobs are overly focused
    on the high tech sector, there is a large world out there that does not
    make its living off of high tech.  People may use high tech to
    facilitate their jobs, but their jobs are not high tech oriented.  It
    is quite possible to make a very good living (higher take home than a
    software engineer) doing something as mundane as selling leather.

    The key again is to adapt and to change.  

    -- Dave

In General, for your parents, grandparents, and beyond:

In the 1800s the horse was king.  Then the automobile came along and
gradually the blacksmiths, corn chandlers and carriage makers went
out of business.  Their children and grandchildren and beyond are doing 
different jobs, but they are still making a living.

In the early 1900s industry was king.  Weaving was a big industry in
Massachusetts and manufacturing jobs were plenty.  Then automation
came along, and the export of jobs to 3rd world countries.  Jobs
in those skill set declined.  To day, their children and grandchildren 
are probably doing different jobs, but they are still making a living.

In the late 1900s the computer industry is very big, at least in 
Massachusetts it is, but has reached it's peak and is declining.  
We have TSFOs, unemployment, working for lesser wages but the majority
of us are still making a living, a very good living.  

Our problem isn't what we earn, or what the government takes out of our 
salary. Our problem is ourselves.  Like fat and carbohydrates in the food
we eat, there is hidden waste in our spending. We borrow against future 
earnings then trust to luck that we don't lose our jobs and can't cover the 
cost of borrowing.  We complain that the finances of the country are being 
mismanaged, but generally ignore how our own finances are handled and how 
much of our own hard earned money we waste.  

PC's, AOL, Compuserv, designer jeans, CD players, boom boxes, workshops full
of wood working tools, jet skis, summer camps, cars, expensive vacations,
and a million more toys and gadgets. All of these are very nice, but they 
aren't necessities.  They aren't even first line luxury.  They are totally 
superfluous.  We don't need them, any more than we need 13 types and half a 
dozen brands of boxed cake mixes and tinned soup.

As note .69 said, if you aren't saving 10% of your salary then you are living
above your means.  Also, if you spend more than 10% of your annual salary
on a car (finance charges included) then you are living above your means.

I read this quote the other day, but can't remember who said it. "Don't
invest your money in anything that eats (money included) or needs painting."  
Not bad advice.

    A friend tells me that in India there is a higher percentage of the
    population with college degrees, especially advanced degrees, then
    here.  But since there are very few jobs for people with those
    qualifications in India, there are a lot of PhDs driving cabs and doing
    more menial jobs.
    
    There are even people in this country now who are well educated but who
    do not have jobs.  It is not always because they are not clever enough
    or hard working or adapatable.  It can also be that companies like to
    hire 22-year-olds with degrees better than 42-year-olds with the same
    degree, in spite of the experience of the older people, because the
    younger people work for MUCH less money, and cost less for health
    insurance.  They are also generally more malleable (easy to boss
    around).
    
    One of my original points was, and still is, that education alone isn't
    going to guarantee America jobs.  Something else is required, and I'm
    not sure what it is.  How do we get our country back to being the land
    of opportunity again?

RE: .72

>    One of my original points was, and still is, that education alone isn't
>    going to guarantee America jobs.  Something else is required, and I'm
>    not sure what it is.  How do we get our country back to being the land
>    of opportunity again?

Effort, sacrifice, discipline, investment, patience.  While these will not 
*guarantee* one's financial security, 99 times out of 100 they will provide an
answer for those interested in a life with financial success.  Education is
just a subset of these principles.

There is no way to guarantee financial security for everyone and that is as it
should be.  


Ray

One of the biggest keys is the belief that all the effort, sacrifice,
discipline, investment, patience, education, god, country, apple pie,
Perot, Gingrich, and dole are going to make a difference.

Many people simply don't believe this, mainly because they don't know
anything else.

Note Seligman's rather hideous dog-frying experimentation (and subsequent
pop-psychology books) that contend that if someone doesn't believe they can
do anything to help themselves, then they won't try.

    I'm not buying it.  You are trying to say that any individual can be as
    successful as s/he wants to be merely by being all those things you
    listed.  Clearly there are other factors involved, like what country
    you happen to be living in.
    
    I'll grant you that to be successful you have to have certain
    characteristics.  Now let's go a step further.  What characteristics of
    your surroundings are necessary for you have a very good chance of
    success?
    
    In earlier days in this country almost anyone who did the right things
    could have a good life.  It is not as easy today, and the view down the
    road is not all that encouraging.  But we are still way above other
    places on earth, like perhaps Ethiopia for example.
    
    What I'm asking is, what have we lost as a country in the past 20-30
    years, and how do we get it back?

    RE: .75

>    I'm not buying it.  You are trying to say that any individual can be as
>    successful as s/he wants to be merely by being all those things you
>    listed.  

    I don't suppose you can point to where anyone said that "successful as
    s/he wants" was guarenteed?  

    By the way, I'm still curious as to how you define "higher standard of
    living", especially in a manner that supports your contention that
    someone who works from 3:30 in the morning until dusk without having
    any of the  modern conviences has a higher standard of living than
    someone who has some (not all) of the modern conviences and only works
    40 hours a week flipping burgers.

    -- Dave

    
      At the time of the Civil War, over 90% of USA employment was
     agricultural.  From then to the 1950's, it declined into single
     digit percentages.
    
      By WWI, manufacturing was the majority of employment.  Since then,
     it has declined to 20% or so.
    
      Since WWII, all of the growth in US employment has been in services.
     The percentages will almost surely increase - legal, medical,
     entertainment, retailing, accounting, consulting, engineering,
     transport, recreation, restaraunts, etc.  Most of the US economy is
     intangible.  GDP has become increasingly conceptual - for example,
     the productivity of a bass player or registry official is reported
     as simply whatever they get payed.  Value is psychological and
     utterly subject to fashion.  "Needs" are mostly created.  In a pinch,
     you don't need most of these services, yet our economy values them
     just as highly in monetary terms as food or oil or computers.
    
      I doubt US employment will trend downward in the future.  We will
     simply sue each other to keep busy, or "entertain" each other with
     mindless video game shoot-em-up's.  On the other hand, it is very
     hard in such an economy to have meaningful growth.  If everybody
     does their lefthand neighbor's wash for $10, instead of their own,
     then GDP would spurt upwards.  But all this shows is that the
     classical economic measures are increasingly irrelevant.  The real
     question is, how good do you feel ?  Judging by what you read, the
     answer seems to be, not so hot.  People find the concept of being
     basically useless make-workers quite stressful.  I expect the
     political effect will be unsettling times in the USA, drift, deadlock,
     and frequent changes in poorly attended elections.  Get used to it.
    
      bb

    Regardless of the unemployment percentage, everyone has a job -- to
    survive, to provide one's self and those in one's care with food,
    clothing, shelter, safety, and the rest.
    
    Everyone has a job.
    
    We do our jobs in different ways.  Some people use the resources
    of the land around them to produce something of value to themselves
    and/or to other people.  Like farmers.
    
    Some people just take things from other people, without producing
    anything of value themselves.  We all know who and what these people
    are -- SOME lawyers, insurance companies, government, and other con-
    artists and thieves.
    
    And like .77 said, many people produce things or perform services
    that people want, don't need, and can easily give up in a recession.
    
    But in a recession there are some people who are more directly
    involved with providing the necessities of life, who can continue
    to live well because they produce the necessities of life.  These
    people are more recession-proof than the rest of us.
    
    >By the way, I'm still curious as to how you define "higher standard of
    >living", especially in a manner that supports your contention that
    >someone who works from 3:30 in the morning until dusk without having
    >any of the  modern conviences has a higher standard of living than
    >someone who has some (not all) of the modern conviences and only works
    >40 hours a week flipping burgers.
    
    Your example of a poor farmer who works from dawn to dusk for almost
    nothing certainly applies to some people, but even more certainly not
    to all people who farm for a living.
    
    Go to any agricultural fair any year in any state and you will see
    living examples of successful farming families who live quite the
    opposite of the picture you painted.
    
    I know a young couple who, along with the rest of their
    multi-generational and extended family, are running a very
    successful farm in Maine, raising all they need to live on, and
    running a grocery store to sell the rest.  They are raising 2 kids,
    have plenty of help from the neighborhood, and are an example of
    what I'm talking about -- a recession-proof, rewarding
    self-sufficient life style, with a standard of living that includes
    all the same things most of us enjoy, including a 25' fishing boat.
    
    My own grandparents lived and worked a small farm in Maine all their
    lives, and had all the conveniences they wanted.  Back in the early
    days of this century they had no central heat, no indoor plumbing,
    and no electricity, but that was the way everyone lived, and they
    resisted installing modern conveniences as long as they could
    simply because they did not want them.
    

    .75
    >>What I'm asking is, what have we lost as a country in the past
    20-30 years, and how do we get it back?<<
    
   You need to ask???   America has lost:
    
    	Work ethic
    	A sense of personal responsibility
    	A commitment to do the right thing
    	A commitment to the next generation 
    	A sense of justice and fair play
        Humanity and kindness
    	
    
    How to regain it.
    
    	Live the above every day
    	Win it back, act of personal integrity by act of personal integrity
    	Teach your kids by example
        End the excessive competition, there is no shame in 2nd place
    	Stop asking "what's in it for me" all the time
    	Stop waiting for someone else to fix the country
        Stop believing political lies.  There is no tax brake that
          won't end up being paid for by either you or your children
    	  and grandchildren.
    
    Only the individual can gain back what you have lost as a country.  
    It won't be won by government, not presidential candidate sound bites, 
    or lopsided social contracts. 
    
    It won't be easy.  There, now you know, so get on with it.

    You forgot one:
    
     Take responsibility for your own actions, quit blaming everyone else.
    
    Dennnis

                             
    no no no no that's YOUR job NOT OURS

    Rosemary, you're incredible.

    |	Work ethic

    	People work every bit as hard, if not harder, than your precious
    	generation.

    |	A sense of personal responsibility

    	People are every bit as responsible. What is this "sense of" thing?
        A good example is the way people take personal responsibility for
        the environment. Something your generation didn't give two shakes of a
    	dingo's tail about.

    |	A commitment to do the right thing

    	And that might be what? I world war? A Korean Conflict? A Vietnam?

    |	A commitment to the next generation 

    	what a laugh. Your generation borrowed ours out of our future. 

    |	A sense of justice and fair play

    	And tell me, what has changed? Would you like to go back to the
    	days when women didn't even get close to equal pay for work of equal
    	value?

    |    Humanity and kindness

    	There's plenty of this around if you'd care to look. In fact,
        people are way more tolerant and kind now than they were. Imagine.
    	In our generation, black and white children go to the same schools
    	and take the same busses and eat in the same restaurants and drink from
    	the same water fountains.

    	Oh, the good old days. NOT!
    	
    

    While your criticisms are well done, Glenn, there is a grain of truth
    to what Rosemary says. The whole of today isn't way better or way
    worse; it's just different. Instead of making blacks ride a different
    bus, we watch them kill each other over a pair of sneakers. Instead of
    women being relegated to the "barefoot and pregnant" routine, they get
    to work outside the home AND do the family thing. In some ways things
    are better, in some ways they are worse. It's mostly just different.
    Rosemary's inability to move beyond the comfort of 50's life doesn't
    mean all of her points are invalid. I do agree, however, that she does
    have the rose colored filters on when she reminisces...

    Okay, so the killing of her generation had the proper outlet. A good
    war has a way of getting the killing off the streets and onto the
    battlefields. We have no use for people who are good at killing at the
    moment but we still have good killers.

    Yes, I will admit there is a grain of truth, but holy cow, to state
    that a whole generation has lost all of these things? I take umbrage.

    .83
    
    It may sound real nice to claim that things are just "different" today
    and when an individual identifies that things are not as good as they
    used to be, you can claim that they are using rose colored glasses. 
    That attempt at marginalization may sound nice, but it is relatively
    inaccurate.
    
    Any society occupies a position on a continuum.  That continuum runs
    from good to bad, which tends to be a rather subjective opinion.  The
    bread and circuses society of Rome was certinly different than the
    prior society, and I think most people tend to think that it was no
    exactly good.  Personally, I tend to think we are approaching a bread
    and circuses environment today.  It's definitely different, but I think
    it occupies a significantly different position on the continuum than
    prior generations.
    

RE: .75

>    I'm not buying it.  You are trying to say that any individual can be as
>    successful as s/he wants to be merely by being all those things you
>    listed.  Clearly there are other factors involved, like what country
>    you happen to be living in.

You can't buy what I'm not selling.  Get the comprehension level up a tad.  I
am not trying to say what you claim, but it is close.  I'll modify the words
you use so you can see it:  The vast majority of individuals can be quite
successful through effort, sacrifice, discipline, investment and patience.
There is indeed a relative scale of "quite successful" based on other factors -
"successful" for the average Cuban will dramatically differ from "successful"
for the average Canadian.
    
>    I'll grant you that to be successful you have to have certain
>    characteristics.  Now let's go a step further.  What characteristics of
>    your surroundings are necessary for you have a very good chance of
>    success?

Of course there are specific exeptions, none of this is guaranteed.  The
next hurricane can wipe out an entire country.  A pestilence could cover
the rice fields of southeast Asia and cause severe famine.  The military
could take over and cause havoc in a multitude of nations.  Utopia is a
dream here on this earth.  I am talking about the general case of relatively
free societies such as in the U.S.  Nearly everyone in the U.S. has the
opportunity to "succeed" but one's success is not guaranteed.
    
>    In earlier days in this country almost anyone who did the right things
>    could have a good life.  It is not as easy today, and the view down the
>    road is not all that encouraging.  But we are still way above other
>    places on earth, like perhaps Ethiopia for example.

I disagree that it is not as easy today.  Almost anyone who does the right
things today can have a good life.  I'd say as much so now than for most of
our history.
    
>    What I'm asking is, what have we lost as a country in the past 20-30
>    years, and how do we get it back?

We've lost (collectively) the willingness to achieve success through effort,
sacrifice, discipline, investment and patience.  We've acquired (collectively)
the lust of instant gratification, selfishness, slothfulness and pleasure.

Ray

    >There is indeed a relative scale of "quite successful" based on
    >other factors - "successful" for the average Cuban will dramatically
    >differ from "successful" for the average Canadian.
    
    OK, good.  This is exactly what I was trying not very successfully
    to get at.  So what is it that makes "successful" for an American
    dramatically different from "successful" for a Cuban, or an
    Ethiopian, or a Whoeverian?
    
    >I disagree that it is not as easy today.  Almost anyone who does the
    >right things today can have a good life.  I'd say as much so now than
    >for most of our history.
    
    On reflection, I have to agree with this statement, at least for most
    of us, and at least for right now.  But a large part of what has kept
    things tolerable for us in the past few decades is the fact that our
    government has had us living high on the hog on debt.  The bill is
    coming due, as many have pointed out, and the next generation or two
    may live life more like the average Cuban than the average American
    today.
    
    This is what concerns me, and I'd like to know how to fix the problem,
    or at least head in the direction of fixing it instead of making it
    worse, which we continue to do despite all the political rhetoric.
    
    >We've lost (collectively) the willingness to achieve success through
    >effort, sacrifice, discipline, investment and patience.  We've
    >acquired (collectively) the lust of instant gratification,
    selfishness,
    >slothfulness and pleasure.
    
    I think you are right, at least to some extent, and I attribute this
    to two identifiable groups of people in our country who are our
    examples, our inspirations, our leaders:
    
            A. Politicians, who will say anything for votes, while
               in reality doing what will get them the most money
               from big business.
    
            B. Big business leaders, inspired by a generation of
               Havahd MBA types to whom quick profits and the bottom
               line are all that matter, and who are willing to con,
               cheat, lie, steal, or anything else to achieve what
               they call "success".
    
    It doesn't matter a whole lot what you and I think and do, as long
    as the country is run by A and B.  B makes sure we have only A-type
    politicians to choose between, and we are left wondering why we
    bother to vote.
    
    Occasionally a Reform Party or a Libertarian Party comes along, but
    nobody votes for them.
    
    Why?
    

RE: 82.
    
If anyone is stuck on the 1950's generation, it seems to be you.
But, that aside.  I think you have a too narrow focus on this
topic. This is not a Them Generation against the Us Generation.
This is about stopping the selfish, cut throat, slash and mash
times we ALL find ourselves in right now.

    |  Work ethic.

     No, people do not work every bit as hard as my grandparents generation.  
     You might think you do, but you don't.  You try making your own butter 
     and bread.  Try shoeing a horse or milking a cow.  If it comes to that, 
     try walking to work in a rain storm.   But, that goodness we don't have
     to or I would never make it.
     
     However, working hard is not what work ethic is all about.  It's doing
     a good job for the sake of doing a good job.  It's not ignoring
     a defect because it's not your responsibility to bring it to
     someone's attention.  It's not taking those extra long coffee
     brakes day after day just because there's no one there to notice.

    |	A sense of personal responsibility

    	People are every bit as responsible. What is this "sense of" thing?
        A good example is the way people take personal responsibility for
        the environment. Something your generation didn't give two shakes of a
    	dingo's tail about.

     A sense of personal responsibility = feeling and understanding that you 
     have an obligation to take responsibility for your action, not just 
     having read that you do.

     Nixon didn't have it, neither did Regan or we wouldn't have had the
     rape of the S&Ls.  Iacocca didn't have it when he made the choice
     to bring the Pinto under the competition price by leaving out
     a metal plate that would have saved some people from a horrible death.
     Ollie North didn't have it when he ignored the democratic process and
     set himself outside of the constitution to sell arms to drug dealers.
     There just isn't enough space to list all those people who would rather
     cheat, hide and pass the buck.

     And, ever hear of Rachel Carson, she is of my generation and she
     cared a "dingo's tail" about the environment.  So did a lot of other
     people.  Do you think Love Canal was uncovered by the X generation?
     No, it was my generation that did it.

    |	A commitment to do the right thing

     (Is that the best you can do, war "A Korean Conflict? A Vietnam?")

     If someone had "done the right thing" over the O rings on Challenger,
     we wouldn't have lost some great astronauts and a teacher.
    
    |	A commitment to the next generation 

     There you go again, you, you, you. You say that my generation has 
     borrowed your's out of your futures.  The next generation isn't you
     sunshine, it's all those children out there who are too young to even 
     go school yet.

     Parents are forced to choose between looking after their children and
     keeping their jobs.  The energy and time that was once available to
     put to child rearing has gone.  Business is demanding 50 60 hours a
     week out of their people and give them a hard time if they need to be out
     for even an afternoon to look after family matters.  This isn't right
     Parents are abdicating their responsibilities to other people.  Librarians 
     have been made babysitters against their wishes.  TV instructs more 
     children than parents do.  The telephone hears almost as many good night
     kisses from parents to children, as children do in person.
    
    |	A sense of justice and fair play

     This reply really puzzles me.  You meant what by it?
    
	And tell me, what has changed? Would you like to go back to the
    	days when women didn't even get close to equal pay for work of equal
    	value?
     
     Getting equal pay for equal work would be justice and fair play.

    |    Humanity and kindness
     
     	Do you call it humanity when thousands of people are laid off while 
     	executives get fat bonuses for doing it.  

     	Do you call it kindness when people can't even take a vacation
     	and feel secure their jobs will be there when they get back.

     	
    
    
    
    	
    

    
    	Breaks
    	breaks
    	breaks
    	breaks
    
    	!!!!
    

    
    Boy, that looks familiar.
    
    8^)
    

    >The bill is coming due, as many have pointed out, and the next generation 
    >or two may live life more like the average Cuban than the average American
    >today.
    
    Can't we just file for bankruptcy? Or better yet maybe the government
    will just decide to walk away from the debt. Many more reputable
    people, than those who run our government, have done just that.

    Walking away from the debt wouldn't work - over 75% of the debt is
    funded by entities in the US.  The collapse would be fast,
    spectacular, and probably bring down avery other western nation too.

    Now I have to compare myself with your grandparents?
    
    What nonsense!

	All of mine are dead. You don't remind me of them. :-)

    >walk away from the national debt
    
    All those old folks who DID save up enough over the years to support
    themselves in their old age would find much of their money gone, 
    since much of the national debt is in the form of bonds that are held
    by elderly Americans, among others.  We don't really want to walk 
    away from the debt.
    
    By the way, the national debt due to federal government bonds is
    only part of the entire national debt.  There are state bonds too.
    

    Couple of observations:
    
    Lots of other countries have MUCH more time off during the average
    work year than we do, and they are still competing very well in the
    world market.
    
    The US was competing very well in the world market, and US families
    were doing very well for income, back when there was only one wage
    earner per family.  We aren't seeing the expected benefits of being
    dougle-wage-earner families today.
    
    I'm not advocating a return to the '50s way of life, or to women
    staying at home, I'm suggesting that we are being screwed by both
    business and government, and there is absolutely no reason why we
    should continue to put up with it.
    
    Personally, I would like to telecommute to work most of the time,
    and there is no reason why I could not work very effectively this
    way.
    
    I would like to work about 3 10-hour days a week or less, and so
    would my wife.  At a professional pay level, that ought to be
    enough to live on comfortably, and still leave plenty of time for
    kids (if they were still living at home).
    
    With telecommuting I would buy back 15 hours a week of commuting
    time, and at $.40 a mile, $100/week in expenses (I have a long
    commute), in exchange for a relatively small expense for equipment
    and connection services.
    
    With more days off, I could do a lot of the work around the house
    that I now have to pay someone else to do.  I could even build my
    own house next time around, and save a huge amount in future debt.
    
    I could spend more time studying for the courses I take at night.
    
    However I spent my extra time, even if I didn't have as much money
    to spend, I would consider my life to be of much higher quality
    than it is now.
    
    But the whole employment/health-insurance-and-other-benefits
    system is designed to require 40 hours a week, and little flexibility
    for working parents with kids at home.
    
    It is senseless for us all to work ourselves half to death for
    ever diminishing returns.
    

    
    Rosemary forgot one teensey little thing. Her generation is going to
    bankrupt SS, while my generation is the major funder of said
    organization. When its my turn to retire, SS will probably be broke.

>    Lots of other countries have MUCH more time off during the average
>    work year than we do, and they are still competing very well in the
>    world market.

I assume you're talking about Western Europe, where the unemployment rate
is considerably higher than that in the U.S.

    Mark,
    
     I don't think there is enough is SS for my generation. I am in the
    first wave of baby boomers.
    
    Dennis

    Coffee brake SNARF!

    >I assume you're talking about Western Europe, where the 
    >unemployment rate is considerably higher than that in the U.S.
    
    Good question.
    
    I am talking about most other countries, as far as I have ever
    heard, not just western Europe.
    
    I don't know what unemployment would have to do with it, and I
    don't know how other countries count unemployment, and I don't
    know how the US counts unemployment.  Damn, I don't seem to know
    much of anything here.  :-)
    
    Before we could compare unemployment figures, we would need to
    know how different countries count unemployment.  I believe that
    in the US they count it by those applying for unemployment
    benefits each week or each month or something.  So those who have
    been on unemployment for so long that they don't get it any longer
    are not counted?  
    
    Does anybody know anything about this?
    
                                  

    Yes.  I'd be unemployed if I was still in Europe. 
    

But the U.S. has lower standards?

    Yow.  Do those towels absorb blood Glenn?

    Colin is helping to satisfy the civilized-employees-lacking-in-crassness
    quota here.  That would be my theory.

    In the Netherlands someone is unemployed when he/she is without work
    or when he/she works less then 12 hours a week and wants to work more.
    Our unemployment rate is about 8%; one of the best in Europe and we
    are going down for a year by now.
    
    Karem.

    RE: .96
    
>    Lots of other countries have MUCH more time off during the average
>    work year than we do, and they are still competing very well in the
>    world market.
 
    What is their pay versus pay in the US?  A few years back some Digital
    Brits were saying that they would gladly trade their extra time off for
    the difference in pay with the US.
    
>    But the whole employment/health-insurance-and-other-benefits
>    system is designed to require 40 hours a week, and little flexibility
>    for working parents with kids at home.
 
    At Digital, I believe that 21 hours a week is required to maintain
    benefits.  There was some issue about 19 (or 20?) versus 20 (or 21)
    hours a week when my wife went to part time.  (She's since gone to
    full-time ... at home).

    If it's really that big of an issue for you, talk to you boss about
    moving to a part-time position with sufficient hours per week to
    maintain benefits.  Your hourly rate should remain the same.

    -- Dave